About your Search

20130318
20130326
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)
could label the republicans or start with ronald reagan, cut taxes, big chunk toss the wealthy and then borrow the money to pay the bills. that's how you get debt, $2 trillion, $3 trillion, $4 trillion. ronald reagan had this concept, starve the beast. he said the way we're going to kill social security and medicare and medicaid, we're at right now, is to make this government's debt so big that we can't afford them. >> guest: absolutely. one second, sir. ronald reagan was never in support of killing any of those programs. i mean, that is hyperbole. >> caller: he wanted to tax on the wealthy. let me finish, please, you get -- >> guest: he cut taxes across the board, sir, on everybody. >> caller: start to filibuster because i'm going to hammer you with a question. he lored the tax on the wealthy from 70 down to 40, and that amounted over the 30 years trillions and trillions of dollars being given away to the wealthy. do you think there's a correlation between us being trillions and trillions of dollars in the hole and the fact we gave trillions and trillions of dollars away to th
to have come to washington to work in a very minor role for ronald reagan and some of us are proud to have supported the bush administration after 9/11 and fighting epimieses and the problem with the obama administration is not that it is too assertive. the problem is that we are retreating all around the world and unfortunately emboldening our enemies. if rand paul wants to run to the left of the obama administration he is tree to ned ahat in the republican minute. maybe this is more is support for that than i think but i doubt there really is. >> chris: nina, the president thinks bringing the troops home not in a rush but steadily and eventually is a winning message in the last campaign, frankly not talking about open-ended commitments. does the gop need to recognize and respond to a war weariness in the country? >> i think the drone issue and war we areness are two totally different issues. rand paul's war and drones is a war on a pretty successful fight against terrorism right now. i'm not sure where that gets us. i agree with bill that the gop doesn't lose by being a strong party of n
of ronald reagan and stop conservatism and just go back to the good old truth that is worked back then, that reagan laid for the incredible ground work of the economy in the 1980's and 1990's. clinton helped to some extent, ut then he created and repealed glass-steagall, and everybody blames it on george bush. the conservatives who didn't do much for the letter peace, we tried to expand under karl rove, the voting process, and giving more to hispanic community, and we didn't get one increase in vote in that eight-year period so. what makes you think that we're going to give amnesty and all the set get a bunch of votes? it's fraud, and it's another really ploy by the democratic party to keep promising and benefits to everybody who will vote for them no matter what. scommoip we're going to talk about immigration in our next segment of the "washington journal" today. but we still have about five minutes left in this segment, if you want to call in to give us your take on this growth and opportunities report that was released today, or if you think hanges in the republican debates would ha
of democrats and ronald reagan agreed to in the 1980's which is to clean out some of these outlandish special interest tax breaks tax breaks. and i see my good friend, senator levin, here tonight and he is going to outline just some of those outlandish tax breaks. we ought to clean them out and use a portion of those dollars to hold down the rates and keep progressivity. and in the two years after democrats and republicans did that, in the 1980's the country created millions of new jobs. no one can say every one of them was due to that tax reform effort, but it certainly helped. and we had senator enzi on the floor earlier this evening, and i've been working with her on something that i think really has been missed in the tax reform debate and that is senator enzi has said when are people going to start talking about the transition rules that you would need to actually implement the tax reform plan, because today in a global economy, and senator murray and i come from a part of the world that's so trade sensitive, here we've got senator enzi talking about something very practical that ought t
in american politics. ronald reagan was president. republicans controlled the senate, not the house, but rage gain has been successful in getting things through the house. immersed a whole bunch evidence to say that there had been, i called it media realignment. that the media was getting more conservative or at least less liberal and i wrote a whole piece on the cover of the new republic. it was completely wrong. as it turned out. i had all of this evidence that i thought added up to something and it really did not. >> does it matter though? >> of course it matter? s. >> why? >> look at the 2012 bam campaign. >> you never changed your views and you lived around the liberal media? what does it matter? are they all sheep following the media says? >> oh, who? >> others. >> the reporters. well, there have been some who have come out. i remember charles when he was liberal. i remember mike when he was a pollster for a liberal democratic polling firm. so some people have changed. >> i am talking about the public? >> sure. >> the public, does the public see only liberal coverage and say, yeah, tha
's platform, these would not have worked so well. >> ronald reagan faced these challenges because he had to deal with a badly broken budget process that was a product of the 1974 act. one of my responsibilities was to draft the decision for reagan called the dutchess process reform act that would deal with these things. i introduced it. we had over 200 sponsors. we had a bipartisan sponsorship in the senate. as you can see from problems we are experiencing, the process has never changed. if you want to find something that is capable of being completely bipartisan, multi- partisan, it is fixing the budget process and a neutral way, because once you subtract everybody's passionate ideology, it is easier to come to agreement about putting a whole thing in a box and making sure there are priorities. making sure the system has teeth, because the big problem the processlow off and people do. >> we started a few minutes late, so we have time for audience questions. if anybody has a question, please raise your hand. i will ask the same thing of you, that when you stand, identify yourself and if
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)